5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Kraków.
6.  On 5 January 2000 the applicant was arrested by the police.
7.  On 7 January 2000 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered his detention pending trial on suspicion of having committed, inter alia, several armed robberies while acting in an organised armed criminal gang. The District Court relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged and the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on him. Moreover, the court considered that the applicant might tamper with evidence.
8.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was extended several times. In their decisions, the courts relied on the reasons previously given and the likelihood that he had committed the offences while acting in an organised armed criminal gang. In this respect, they referred, inter alia, to the testimony of a crown witness (świadek koronny). Further, they referred to the complexity of the case, the need to obtain further evidence and the fact that some of the suspects had not yet been arrested.
9.  Simultaneously, between 27 September 2000 and 27 September 2002, the applicant was serving a prison sentence imposed on him in other criminal proceedings.
10.  On 11 June 2001 the investigation was completed and on 18 June 2001 the applicant was indicted before the Kraków Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).
11.  Due to the fact that some of the accused were detained in the Katowice area, on 4 March 2002 the Kraków Regional Court asked the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) to refer the case to the Katowice Regional Court. On an unspecified date the Katowice Court of Appeal refused. On 5 May 2002 the Supreme Court, following a request by the Kraków Regional Court, referred the case to the Katowice Regional Court.
12.  The first hearing was scheduled for 23 January 2003, but it did not take place because one of the defence lawyers was unwell.
13.  On 13 February 2003 the trial started. It was continued on 20 March, 10 April and 15 May 2003 when the trial court heard evidence from the co‑accused. On 12 June 2003 the trial court heard evidence from one witness but could not proceed with hearing other evidence because a sworn interpreter had failed to appear.
14.  At a hearing held on 8 July 2003, out of fifteen witnesses only three appeared before the trial court. Similarly, on 25 September 2003, the Katowice Regional Court took evidence from only one witness, instead of four. At the subsequent hearing held on 26 September 2003, seven witnesses failed to appear at the trial, so the court heard evidence from only three witnesses. The same happened at the hearings held on 27 November and 18 December 2003, 6 June 2004 and 25 February 2005.
15.  Between 7 July 2004 and 20 January 2005 the trial court scheduled seven hearings. Only one, scheduled for 29 October 2004, took place.
16.  In sum, from 13 February 2003 to 25 May 2005, the Katowice Regional Court heard evidence from only seven witnesses.
17.  It appears that no hearing was scheduled between 15 July and 1 September 2006 because the hearing room was under renovation.
18.  Around sixteen out of forty-five hearings scheduled by the first‑instance court were cancelled for various reasons, such as: the absence of some witnesses, defendants and interpreters; failure of the police to bring certain accused to the court from detention centres; the summer break; the resignation of one of the defence lawyers; the illness of a lay judge and a professional judge; and the failure to notify one of the defence lawyers of a hearing.
19.  The term of the applicant's detention during the proceedings was subsequently extended by the Katowice Regional Court on 25 June, 28 September and 28 December 2001 as well as later by the Katowice Court of Appeal on 25 September, 27 October and 10 December 2003; 10 March, 30 June and 10 November 2004; 16 February, 25 May and 21 September 2005; and 11 January, 5 April, 7 June, 20 September 2006 and 19 December 2006. In addition to the reasons specified in the decisions given during the investigation, the courts vaguely referred to the continuing necessity to obtain further witness evidence. They noted that it was not possible to schedule hearings more often because only one hearing room meeting the relevant safety requirements had been at the disposal of the trial court. However, the Katowice Court of Appeal in its decisions given in 2005 and 2006 extending the applicant's detention acknowledged to a certain degree that the applicant's detention had been excessive, criticised delays in the collection of the evidence and ordered the trial court to speed up the proceedings and discipline the defence lawyers.
20.  Requests by the applicant for release and appeals against the extensions of his detention were to no avail. The courts held that the reasons for his detention were still valid.
21.  On 13 March 2007 the applicant was released. The court prohibited him from leaving the country and confiscated his passport.
22.  The proceedings are pending before the first-instance court.
23.  On 23 May 2005 the applicant lodged with the Katowice Court of Appeal a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
24.  The applicant sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Katowice Regional Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. EUR 2,500 euros (EUR)).
25.  On 13 July 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's complaint. To a certain extent it acknowledged that the proceedings had been lengthy. However, in the opinion of the court that was due to objective reasons, namely the factual and legal complexity of the case, such as the significant number of accused, the nature of the charges against them, the fact that they were dangerous criminals and the necessity to ensure that the trial was conducted safely. The court explained that as the applicant had been serving another sentence between 27 September 2000 and 27 September 2002, those two years should not be taken into account when assessing the overall length of his detention.